Case 1801712/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Coralie Tooke v Dr Andrew Bradley and Mrs Kairen Bradley t/a Capella Home and Gift — 2021
- Case reference
- 1801712/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Panel members
- Mr D Eales, Mr G Harker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Coralie Tooke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Tooke worked for the respondents at the Settle shop from April 2017 until her dismissal on 31 December 2019, and also worked one day a week at the Windermere shop for part of 2018 and 2019. The tribunal accepted that the Settle and Windermere businesses were associated employers, but found that the respondents treated them as separate businesses when deciding how to staff Windermere after Settle closed. The claimant became pregnant in January 2019, took maternity leave from 28 September 2019, and was dismissed while on leave when the Settle shop closed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 99 ERA 1996 and regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999; dismissed because the tribunal found no suitable alternative vacancy at Windermere. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996; upheld on procedural unfairness because there was no proper consultation process or appeal, although the tribunal found the redundancy itself was genuine and the substantive decision not to redeploy was within the range of reasonable responses. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 Equality Act 2010 claim upheld on the basis that the claimant's maternity leave had a significant influence on the decision not to offer her work at Windermere; no remedy was determined at this judgment. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- Simpson v Endsleigh Insurance Services Ltd
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Mugford v Midland Bank
- range of reasonable responses
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- section 136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- O'Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.